Jane Doe, her claims against Michael Jackson and those highly suspicious cheques....

So today; we're greeted with the news that Michael Jackson has yet another alleged victim. This time this is a female who prefers to call herself "Jane Doe". She alleges that Michael abused her at the age of 12 years old, at Hayvenhurst. According to court documents; the abuse continued right through puberty and at 16, Michael wrote cheques in order to keep her quiet.

He even sent her little "love letters" as alleged in a report by TMZ.

Well let's first look at one of these so-called love letters.

Okay, the first thing which strikes me is the signature. There is something definitely very off about it, in particular the M in "Michael" and the L. Let's look at a copy of his real signature.

Michael's signature is definitely more "compact" and slopes to the left. So why then does the signature on the love letter slope to the right? For a man who has been regularly signing his name for many years; why would he suddenly change the direction of his signature? I smell a forgery.

Then there is the placement of the "I". In every other copy of Michael's signature I've looked at; the "i" is much closer to the "m" to the point where on the occasions he does dot the "i", the dot is lost in the end of the "m", as you can see below:

And again, in both of the above examples; we see the signature sloping again to the left. 

Now let's look at the court documents in which Jane Doe makes her claims. In it; she claims she "suddenly remembers" the psychological injuries caused by the alleged abuse some 30 years later. Doesn't this all sound very familiar? Wade Robson "suddenly remembered" this abuse as did Jimmy Safechuck. And of course it is no coincidence that the lawyers acting for Jane Doe are the same ones acting for Robson and Safechuck.

But now we come to the big reveal. Now when I first saw the cheques which claim to be the "hush money" Michael supposedly paid her; the first thing which struck me was the fact that she still has possession of these cheques. Now why, if she'd been "paid off" would she still have them? Cashed cheques are retained by the bank. In the event they are not honoured, they are returned to sender.

Then of course there's the fact that we don't see the back of the cheques, where the recipient has endorsed them. And of course, as you look at the images below, there's no name and address of said recipient.

But wait...there's something else wrong with this, especially the first cheque. All cheques have to display the cheque number. And the bank encodes the cheque number at the bottom. But if you look closely at the first cheque; the cheque number and the encoded cheque number don't match.

At the top right of the cheque, the legible numbers read: No: 165538. But let's look at the encoding at the bottom left hand corner of the cheque; which SHOULD be the same as the cheque number. But it reads: 169535. Does not compute.

So what do we really have here?

Well I'll tell you. On 7th October, Wade Robson was granted his amendment to his claim. This wasn't made widely available in the media because his lawyers were already "fishing" for a third victim to bolster his already very weak case. The fact that the amendment was granted is not unusual. The judge will often give the plaintiff every chance to prove their claims. But the amendment does also mean that the Estate can now file a demurrer to have the case thrown out of court. And as we've already talked about the many weaknesses this case has; it is obvious that Robson's lawyers are doing  everything they can to avoid this case being thrown out.

There's also the fact that IF this case makes it to trial, it still has more holes in it than swiss cheese. The fact is; Robson's lawyers don't want it to get to trial, because they know the case is going to be utterly destroyed by the lawyers for the Estate. Far better to get the Estate to scream "uncle" and settle out of court, hence Robson's legal team repeatedly use their weapon of choice - the media.
If they can't find Michael guilty in a court of law; they'll attempt to find him guilty in the court of public opinion.

Yet these obvious fakes do very little to bolster their case and instead; chip away at what little credibility they have. Let's not forget that in a recent interview; Robson's lawyer used Wikipedia as a case reference and even then was wildly inaccurate, stating that the abuse allegations against Michael are not mentioned on the site. It only takes a very quick read to see that they are and in detail, for that matter.

Apparently  Vince Finaldi got his law degree from a Christmas cracker...or Wade Robson found them on Craigslist.....

ADDENDUM: Further research and with the help of various other advocates (big thanks to MJJ Justice Project!) here's a picture of Michael and his latest accuser. Take a look at the hand - and ask yourself when Michael suddenly grew a second set of fingers. Shoddy cropping job - a blind man could have done better! Oh, and a fellow advocate did run the image through an analysis program to see if it had been edited. The results? PROBABLY. I'll let you draw your own conclusions...

The very vivid imagination of James Safechuck.

So today and as I predicted; we are greeted with the news that Jimmy Safechuck is now amending his molestation suit in a direct carbon copy of the suit from Wade Robson. He now alleges that MJJ Productions/MJJ Ventures were directly responsible in facilitating the alleged abuse by Michael Jackson. Sound familiar?

Yet again; this is more evidence of the lawyers for the case, attempting to "make something stick" in order to gain a hefty payout for the "co-conspirators."

When you look at the alleged complaint by Safechuck; you have to wonder what on earth goes on in that mind of his, to lead him to produce such vivid claims - it is indeed far more hard-core then that of Wade Robson.

Safechuck alleges that Michael's abuse of him took place in a Paris hotel room, during the European leg of the Bad tour in 1988. But let's look in further details at Safechuck's claim, in which he alleges that "Michael showed him porn and movies were children were masturbating and engaging in sexual activities." This begs the question as to why material of this nature was not found in the 2003 raid of Neverland. Any material featuring "children masturbating and engaging in sexual activities" would indeed come under the "child porn" heading. Yet we have already shown that there was indeed no child porn found in the 2003 raid.

Safechuck then alleges that he "outcried" his abuse to his mother, but then asked her not to tell Michael of his allegations. Yet when Michael's lawyers contacted her to ask her to testify in Michael's defence in 2005; she makes no reference to the alleged abuse.

He then goes so far as to say that Michael personally contacted him and threatened him when he refused to testify in 2005, claiming he had the best lawyers in the world and would get Safechuck "for perjury in the 1993 trial."

I see two problems with the above:

1.) Michael was not the one calling for witnesses. His lawyers were as is the norm.

2.) There was no trial in 1993. In fact is was on this day in 1994, that the DA in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara announced that they would not be filing any charges against Michael, in respect of the 1993 molestation claims.

Let's take a deeper look at the time line of events surround Safechuck's claims.

In 1987, aged 7 years old, Safechuck meets Michael when they film the Pepsi commercial. After that, there is no communication between the two for several months. Now this is particularly relevant with regard to his amended claim; he which he alleges MJJ Productions/MJJ Ventures facilitated the abuse.

A few months AFTER the shooting of the Pepsi commercial; it is Safechuck NOT Michael, who makes the first attempt at communication, by which he writes to Michael. On 10th March 1987; Michael sends a polite reply:

8. Several months after the Pepsi commercial was shot, Decedent wrote a letter to Plaintiff on Doe 2’s stationery dated March 10, 1987. It stated:

“Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for your letter. It was nice hearing from you again! I’ve been working on a new video for my album and have been really busy.

It was fun working with you on the Pepsi commercial! Maybe we can work together again. I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.

Keep sending me letters! I love to hear from you!

Speak with you soon, [Decedent’s signature]”

The Decedent also enclosed photographs from the Pepsi commercial that they shot together.

So it is Safechuck who initiates contact as if to remind Michael of his existence.

As Michael begins the Bad Tour in 1987, the letters from Safechuck continue until Michael takes a break from touring and invites Safechuck to dinner at Hayvenhurst in early November 1987.

November 26 1987, while Michael is in Australia, the Safechucks call Michael and invite him to their home. At the end of the first leg of the Bad Tour in early December, Michael travels back to the US and goes to visit the Safechuck family at their home in Simi Valley. 

Christmas 1987 sees Safechuck visit Michael at Hayvenhurst again. During this time; Michael takes Safechuck to visit homeless people and hands out money to them.

In January 1988, the Safechuck family visit Michael again at Hayvehurst and spend time in Michael's recording studio.

February 1988, Pepsi invite both Safechuck and Michael to Hawaii where the Pepsi commercial is shown. 

In the both pictures, we see Michael with an unknown woman - too young to be Safechuck's mother who at that time was in her 40's. The first picture shows Michael doing what appears to be a publicity or fan photograph while Safechuck remains in the background, looking into the lake. The second picture shows Safechuck some feet behind Michael and his companion as they walk along the bridge. Does this show a picture of Michael having a "special interest" in Safechuck, as Safechuck alleges? It shows to me, he was clearly more interested in his female companion...

In February 1988, Safechuck attends Michael's Bad Tour rehearsals in Florida before Michael invites the Safechuck family to see The Phantom Of The Opera in New York in March 1988. It is at this time that Safechuck expresses a wish to stay in Michael's room; yet Safechuck's mother does not allow it. 

16. “During the convention, Plaintiff spent a great deal of time with Decedent and got to know him well, and their friendship deepened. On this trip, Decedent asked if Plaintiff could sleep over in his room, but Plaintiff’s mother did not permit it. This was the first time Decedent asked if Plaintiff could “sleep over” in his room.

Yet Safechuck also claims that Michael visited the family home and stayed in Safechuck's room on a regular basis. So why if that is the case, would his mother suddenly refuse to allow him to "sleep over" with Michael in New York on the first occasion of Michael asking?

It is June 1988 when Safechuck alleges that Michael "began to abuse him" in a hotel room in Paris during the European leg of the Bad Tour - AFTER the incident where Safechuck's mother had refused to allow Safechuck to stay in Michael's room in New York.

Oh and here's the best part of Safechuck's claim. He states that he "decided to come forward" AFTER Wade Robson had come forward because he decided to "see a psychiatrist, believing his anxiety and panic attacks stemmed from Michael's abuse of him". Doesn't that all sound so familiar? 

Remember; Wade Robson has alleged his "repressed memories" came back after a mental breakdown. That was before he changed his story to say he "always remembered the abuse" but "didn't recognise it as abuse." Unless he was deaf, dumb and blind during the 2005 trial, in which he testified under oath, that Michael never touched him, how could he not recognise his alleged experiences as abuse?

To summarise, this is what I see and this ties is well with my rebuttal on Wade Robson's amended claim. The IME carried out at the request of the MJ Estate has clearly not gone in Robson's favour - hence he drops the molestation claim and now goes for negligence against Michael's business entities. Couple that with the huge holes in his claims; he needs to make something stick in order to get his grubby hands on Michael's money. So a quick call to his buddy Jimmy Safechuck and magically; Safechuck amends his claim. Hello? Timing!

And here is something else I want to share with you. In the last few days; I have received a very credible tip-off that MJ trolls are attempting to bully Corey Feldman in an attempt to force him to testify against his late friend Michael. I will go further into this as the story develops, but let me just say that these are the same people who attempted to bully Macaulay Culkin to allege Michael abused him. This saw Mr Culkin close all of his social media accounts several years ago. Shake down part two - and this time Mr Feldman is the victim.

In short; Wade Robson needs his "co-conspirator" to beef up his case and Safechuck's very warped imagination is exactly what his case needs. Unfortunately however; like Robson's case; there are still gaping holes in Safechuck's case. I for one will be sitting back and watching how this plays out. 

Both complainants have decided to use their weapon of choice - the media. Why? Because they want the same treatment Evan Chandler received in 1993. Michael's insurers settled out of court; so Robson and Safechuck are counting on Michael's Estate doing the same. There's one big difference this time however. Michael isn't here - so there is no need to protect their interest for the purpose of keeping him churning out the money. This time; they can tell Robson and Safechuck to take a running jump - which is exactly what they are doing. So now comes the media smear campaign - the Robson/Safechuck weapon of choice. 

Simply put; it's a case of "pay me and I'll shut up," echoing Evan Chandler's words. Yet like Michael maintained in 1993; the truth will come out in court - and will shut up the vultures for good. Michael's Estate are doing exactly what they should have done in 1993; and responding with a simple "see you in court!" This is about to get interesting....

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE ADLLAW INITIATIVE.

Ladies and gentlemen I want to clear up a few "misconceptions" and false information which has been doing the rounds with regard to the AdLLaw Petition.
This has lead to some fans believe the petition to be a waste of time and not a legal challenge, which this is clearly not the case.

The AdLLaw Initiative's purpose is to make a much needed change in the law; to extend defamation rights to the deceased. This means that the families of those deceased would be given the right to take legal action against those slandering their deceased loved ones. These are the same rights as the living currently have.

In addition; the AdLLaw Petition/Initiative is not just about Michael Jackson. It is about EVERYBODY for the simple reason that defamation can and does affect anybody and everybody. It is not just limited to people in the public eye and certainly not just limited to Michael Jackson. For example; in the case of hate groups like Westboro Baptist Church spreading lies and portraying said lies as fact about dead soldiers - THAT is defamation.

We use Michael Jackson as an example of somebody in the public eye who has been defamed, for the following reasons:

1.) He is arguably the worst victim of defamation and slander. NOBODY in the public eye has suffered worse than he has.

2.) Michael is very much in the news at the moment and will continue to be so during the ensuing Wade Robson/Jimmy Safechuck case. We have indeed seen various articles slandering Michael in the last 6 months and beyond.

3.) Michael Jackson is very well known case of repeated defamation.

The AdLLaw Petition is NOT about getting the MJ Estate to sue Wade Robson for slander - as has been suggested. As the Estate have already explained; they cannot sue Robson because the defamation laws do not currently extend to the deceased - just like they are unable to sue Conrad Murray for his book for the same reason.

While some MJ advocates like myself are determined to report the FACTS of the Robson/Safechuck case; in order to separate fact from media fiction; these acts of advocacy are SEPARATE from the AdLLaw Petition.

You can read more about the initiative at the link below and I encourage all fans to do so, in order to be better informed and to avoid any confusion.

Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.

https://antidefamationlegacylawadvocates.org/